Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

or

did not use equivocation (a point to which we shall return), and that the Gunpowder Plot was of the worst Anarchist or Fenian type, while Atterbury was engaged in the Cause rendered illustrious by the chivalrous names of Derwentwater, Kenmure, Wogan, Clanranald, Pitsligo, and Lochiel. These gentlemen, indeed, rose openly in arms for their king; but Jacobite conspiracies were not all of this type, least of all was the nefarious set of plots in which Atterbury is implicated. Between 1689 and 1760 every species of plot was attempted. There were open Risings, as in 1715 and 1745, with or without promise of foreign aid. Help was sought from, and occasionally doled out promised by, France, Spain, Russia, Prussia, and Sweden. In 1718, the very ship in which Charles XII. was to have sailed for a rising in Scotland was built, and decorated with the Royal arms of Sweden and the name of CAROLUS. But death, as in the cases of Louis XIV. and Charles XII., or a change in European politics,-as in the case of Spain in 1722, of Peter the Great, of the Treaty of Aix-laChapelle (1748), and of Frederick the Great in 1754,-or defeat, as in Hawke's triumph over Conflans in 1759, always interfered. The Jacobites were then thrown on their own resources, which might take the form of a Rising of the Clans, or of tampering with the army, or of an invasion by broken men,-Irish and other exiles and disbanded soldiers,-or of an assault on the Palace by a mob, or by a gang of Highlanders and officers in French service, for the purpose of kidnapping or killing the Royal Family; or, finally, simple assassination by shot, steel, or poison was proposed, and in

stantly forbidden by Prince Charles (1746-1749).

Now, the plot in which Atterbury was deeply implicated was, originally, one for a landing of Irish and Scotch exiles under the Duke of Ormond, for the seizure of the Tower and the Bank, and the Royal Family, coupled with a mob rising in London, and a Scottish insurrection. But, as notice was duly received by the English Government, and as camps were formed in Hyde Park and elsewhere, while Ormond and his allies were stopped by Spain and France, the plot developed into "The Scheme" for corrupting the Guards, seizing Tower, Mint, and Bank, securing the Royal Family, kidnapping the Ministers, and arming the mob. George I. and the Prince of Wales were not likely to escape alive; as much may be said for the chances of Walpole, Carteret, Townshend, and Cadogan (Marlborough's successor as General); the Bank would have been robbed, and London filled with fire and blood. This pleasing scheme, it will be admitted, falls but little short of the Gunpowder Plot in atrocity. True, the scheme never had the faintest chance of succeeding. It was, we shall show, on a practical level with the intrigues of Sentimental Tommy. Atterbury, in his defence, said that the conspirators should be pitied as madmen, not punished as traitors. But much the same may be said against the practical plausibility of the Gunpowder Plot, over which Cecil, no doubt, was watching with a superior smile. Again, Atterbury denies, probably with truth, that he had ever heard of Christopher Layer, the Catesby of The Scheme. But Atterbury was in close and undeniable connection with the conspirators; "it is necessary to

make the most of them," was his opinion, according to his amanuensis, Kelly. Again, this secretary, Kelly, was in correspondence with Dillon, the French manager of the Chevalier's affairs, and with Plunket, a veteran plotter allied with Christopher Layer, while Atterbury himself was in a league with Lord North and Grey, who held the Chevalier's commission as General in the plot, and who himself was in constant communication with Christopher Layer. Thus there was a perfect hierarchy, beginning with the Chevalier in Rome, and Atterbury in Westminster, and ending in a disreputable barrister, Layer, a broken Canary merchant, Lynch, an invalided sergeant, Matthew Plunket, and Mrs Hughes, Prince Charlie's nurse! Such are the consequences when learned Bishops stoop to treason. The friend of Pope, Swift, and Orrery (himself a conspirator) is in touch with beery old Matthew Plunket.

a

The story of the conspiracy may now be told, for it is precisely typical of the bubbles of intrigue which perpetually rose and burst, during eighty years of English history. One curious feature is, the persistence of certain families in these stereotyped attempts. At an interval of thirty years, whole generation, from 1722, — we find, in 1752, Kellys, Gorings, Waterses, Dawkinses, Wogans, as busily and as vainly engaged as their fathers had been. Ciphers change, of course, but the contents of ciphered letters never vary. In 1752 we have the same obvious allegories of "stocks," "goods," and "lawsuits," and the same kinds of transparent nicknames and clear allusions. Lord Eli

bank's Plot of 1752 is a crude revival of The Scheme of 1722. Identical jealousies and mistrusts in the Jacobite party always prevail, the Traitor is never wanting, and, generally speaking, the foreign agents of England know all that there is to be known.

The first of Atterbury's published letters to the Chevalier is of August 15, 1717. "For many years," Atterbury says, he has been "promoting the service." At that moment he is corresponding with Mar, and using the pseudonym "Mr Young." He is also on bad terms with Lord Oxford, "Clair," who becomes Hacket in the year of the Plot. As a rule, the Jacobites simplified matters for the English Government, by giving to pseudonyms the same initials as the real names. Already, in 1717, "Rochester" is "Rig" in some ciphers. "Money" is "muslins," and "a small quantity of the commodity is procured with difficulty." It was as hard to get "muslins" out of Menzies as, forty years after, it was to extract them from Cluny. From 1717 to 1718, the Bishop's correspondence concerns la haute politique, the English Ministry, Foreign Affairs, the Chevalier's marriage, a futile attempt to win over Lord Cadogan, and so forth. There is a break till 1720; we do not know what Atterbury thought of the feeble Rising crushed in Glenshiel. In 1720, hopes were entertained from the Regent in France, who habitually sold or "gave away" the Jacobites. On April 22, 1721, the Bishop recommends Sir Henry Goring, a Sussex Baronet who was deep in the plot of 1722, and had an original scheme for using "The Waltham Blacks," a gang of smugglers.1 He

1 Atterbury's remarks as to his ignorance of Goring, in his defence, are pleasing examples of equivocation.

was the father of Prince Charles's equerry, Henry Goring; and his admired smugglers, about 1747, were again approached by Lally Tollendal. As early as October 25, 1720, Dillon mooted to Atterbury the scheme of bringing over Ormond, as "the darling of the soldiers," Dillon himself coming also with 200 officers. Atterbury thought that foreign aid was indispensable.

The year 1722 was the year of the Plot. None of Atterbury's correspondence is found, except three letters of April 20 to Mar, Dillon, and James, intercepted and copied by the English Government. At this moment Mar was anxious that Atterbury should join hands with Oxford, for Atterbury "has had some communication with the young merchants, and sees, I doubt not, their folly, and the danger there is of that trade's being ever ruined by their mismanagement." 1 Atterbury decided to join with Oxford, and (April 20) dictated to Kelly the letters intercepted, and used against him at his trial. In these letters the Bishop alludes to his own bad health and the illness and death of his wife. He speaks of "distracting measures by persons no ways equal to the work;" he refers to letters from Ormond and "Captain Will Morgan" which he has seen; he insists on the danger of using the post; he withdraws from schemes with persons "who shall always, by me, be treated tenderly."

Who are these "persons," these "young merchants," these incapable authors of "distracting measures," whom Atterbury will use

tenderly? They are, manifestly, the agents in the various plots tending to the seizure of King George's person and Ministers, the Bank, the Tower, and so forth. Atterbury (April 20, 1722) will treat them tenderly, "though nothing shall engage me to enter deeply with them for the future." This he dictates to Kelly, who was in league with all of these conspirators in various degrees.

We possess no more of the Bishop's letters till after his trial and exile in 1723, except those written for him, after the arrest of Kelly, in May, by Thomas Carte, the historian.2 These show Atterbury still conspiring, up to July 30, 1722, and especially engaged with a Jacobite envoy from France in the "arrack" affair, which probably means the procuring of money for the cause. Now these months, April-July 1722, were occupied by the Jacobites in various forms of The Scheme for raising the mob, and seizing George I. with his Ministers.

We next turn to the affairs of "the young merchants," and very curious they are.

In January 1722, James sent over Commissions for various nobles who were to hold command in “an Insurrection." He told Atterbury that he was sorry he had to defer making him Archbishop of Canterbury! On March 31, 1722, a letter was left at Lord Townshend's house, purporting to be a translation of a letter in French, dated Feb. 12, 1722, and giving a disheartening account of the hopelessness of a proposed scheme for "delivering ourselves by our own interest." The writer hopes only in foreign

This is a curious remark of Mar's, as James himself was entirely in the schemes of "the young merchants."

2 Carte was in the Elibank Plot of 1752-53. He died in 1754. He was a good Jacobite, and not a bad historian.

[ocr errors]

make the most of them," was his bank's Plot of 1752 is a crude opinion, according to his amanu- revival of The Scheme of 1722. ensis, Kelly. Again, this secre- Identical jealousies and mistrusts tary, Kelly, was in correspondence in the Jacobite party always prewith Dillon, the French manager vail, the Traitor is never wanting, of the Chevalier's affairs, and with and, generally speaking, the foreign Plunket, a veteran plotter allied agents of England know all that with Christopher Layer, while there is to be known. Atterbury himself was in a league with Lord North and Grey, who held the Chevalier's commission as General in the plot, and who himself was in constant communication with Christopher Layer. Thus there was a perfect hierarchy, beginning with the Chevalier in Rome, and Atterbury in Westminster, and ending in a disreputable barrister, Layer, a broken Canary merchant, Lynch, an invalided sergeant, Matthew Plunket, and Mrs Hughes, Prince Charlie's nurse! Such are the consequences when learned Bishops stoop to treason. The friend of Pope, Swift, and Orrery (himself a conspirator) is in touch with beery old Matthew Plunket.

a

The story of the conspiracy may now be told, for it is precisely typical of the bubbles of intrigue which perpetually rose and burst, during eighty years of English history. One curious feature is, the persistence of certain families in these stereotyped attempts. At an interval of thirty years, whole generation, from 1722,we find, in 1752, Kellys, Gorings, Waterses, Dawkinses, Wogans, as busily and as vainly engaged as their fathers had been. Ciphers change, of course, but the contents of ciphered letters never vary. In 1752 we have the same obvious allegories of "stocks," "goods," and "lawsuits," and the same kinds of transparent nicknames and clear allusions. Lord Eli

[ocr errors]

The first of Atterbury's published letters to the Chevalier is of August 15, 1717. "For many years," Atterbury says, he has been "promoting the service." At that moment he is corresponding with Mar, and using the pseudonym "Mr Young." He is also on bad terms with Lord Oxford, "Clair," who becomes Hacket in the year of the Plot. As a rule, the Jacobites simplified matters for the English Government, by giving to pseudonyms the same initials as the real names. Already, in 1717, "Rochester" is "Rig in some ciphers. "Money" is "muslins," and "a small quantity of the commodity is procured with difficulty." It was as hard to get "muslins" out of Menzies as, forty years after, it was to extract them from Cluny. From 1717 to 1718, the Bishop's correspondence concerns la haute politique, the English Ministry, Foreign Affairs, the Chevalier's marriage, a futile attempt to win over Lord Cadogan, and so forth. There is a break till 1720; we do not know what Atterbury thought of the feeble Rising crushed in Glenshiel. In 1720, hopes were entertained from the Regent in France, who habitually sold or 'gave away" the Jacobites. On April 22, 1721, the Bishop recommends Sir Henry Goring, a Sussex Baronet who was deep in the plot of 1722, and had an original scheme for using "The Waltham Blacks," a gang of smugglers.1 He

1 Atterbury's remarks as to his ignorance of Goring, in his defence, are pleasing examples of equivocation.

was the father of Prince Charles's tenderly? They are, manifestly,
equerry, Henry Goring; and his the agents in the various plots
admired smugglers, about 1747, tending to the seizure of King
were again approached by Lally George's person and Ministers, the
Tollendal. As early as October Bank, the Tower, and so forth.
25, 1720, Dillon mooted to Atter- Atterbury (April 20, 1722) will
bury the scheme of bringing over treat them tenderly, "though noth-
Ormond, as "the darling of the ing shall engage me to enter deeply
soldiers," Dillon himself coming with them for the future." This
also with 200 officers. Atterbury he dictates to Kelly, who was in
thought that foreign aid was in- league with all of these conspira-
dispensable.
tors in various degrees.

The year 1722 was the year of the Plot. None of Atterbury's correspondence is found, except three letters of April 20 to Mar, Dillon, and James, intercepted and copied by the English Government. At this moment Mar was anxious that Atterbury should join hands with Oxford, for Atterbury "has had some communication with the young merchants, and sees, I doubt not, their folly, and the danger there is of that trade's being ever ruined by their mismanagement." 1 Atterbury decided to join with Oxford, and (April 20) dictated to Kelly the letters intercepted, and used against him at his trial. In these letters the Bishop alludes to his own bad health and the illness and death of his wife. He speaks of "distracting measures by persons no ways equal to the work;" he refers to letters from Ormond and "Captain Will Morgan " which he has seen; he insists on the danger of using the post; he withdraws from schemes with persons "who shall always, by me, be treated tenderly."

Who are these "persons," these "young merchants," these incapable authors of "distracting measures," whom Atterbury will use

We possess no more of the Bishop's letters till after his trial and exile in 1723, except those written for him, after the arrest of Kelly, in May, by Thomas Carte, the historian.2 These show Atterbury still conspiring, up to July 30, 1722, and especially engaged with a Jacobite envoy from France in the "arrack" affair, which probably means the procuring of money for the cause. Now these months, April-July 1722, were occupied by the Jacobites in various forms of The Scheme for raising the mob, and seizing George I. with his Ministers.

We next turn to the affairs of "the young merchants," and very curious they are.

In January 1722, James sent over Commissions for various nobles who were to hold command in "an Insurrection." He told Atterbury that he was sorry he had to defer making him Archbishop of Canterbury! On March 31, 1722, a letter was left at Lord Townshend's house, purporting to be a transla tion of a letter in French, dated Feb. 12, 1722, and giving a disheartening account of the hopelessness of a proposed scheme for "delivering ourselves by our own interest.” The writer hopes only in foreign

1 This is a curious remark of Mar's, as James himself was entirely in the schemes of "the young merchants."

2 Carte was in the Elibank Plot of 1752-53. He ii in 1734. good Jacobite, and not a bad historian.

He was a

:

« VorigeDoorgaan »